Open Stack

Hi,
Assuming this is agreed (is it?) - here's the dilemma:
- Tagging the subject is problematic due to length limit and fails the pep8 gate
- Tagging in the message looses the visibility value

Can we check for the subject length without the tags, or disable this check completely?
Yair


----- Original Message -----
From: "Yair Fried" <yfried at redhat.com>
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2013 11:20:40 AM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Tempest][qa] Adding tags to commit messages



----- Original Message -----
> From: "Masayuki Igawa" <masayuki.igawa at gmail.com>
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2013 10:42:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Tempest][qa] Adding tags to commit messages
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Yair Fried <yfried at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Suggestion: Please consider tagging your Tempest commit messages
> > the same way you do your mails in the mailing list
> >
> > Explanation: Since tempest is a single project testing multiple
> > Openstack project we have a very diverse collection of patches as
> > well as reviewers. Tagging our commit messages will allow us to
> > classify patches and thus:
> > 1. Allow reviewer to focus on patches related to their area of
> > expertise
> > 2. Track "trends" in patches - I think we all know that we lack in
> > Neutron testing for example, but can we assess how many network
> > related patches are for awaiting review
> > 3. Future automation of flagging "interesting" patches
> >
> > You can usually tell all of this from reviewing the patch, but by
> > then - you've spent time on a patch you might not even be
> > qualified to review.
> > I suggest we tag our patches with, to start with, the components we
> > are looking to test, and the type of test (sceanrio, api, ...) and
> > that reviewers should -1 untagged patches.
> >
> > I think the tagging should be the 2nd line in the message:
> >
> > ======================================
> > Example commit message
> >
> > [Neutron][Nova][Network][Scenario]
> >
> > Explanation of how this scenario tests both Neutron and Nova
> > Network performance
> >
> > Chang-id XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> > =======================================
> >
> > I would like this to start immediately but what do you guys think?
> 
> +1
> 
> And, how about do we the tagging about the services in the
> subject(1st line)?
> For example:
>   Neutron:Example commit subject
> 
> Because the dashboard of the gerrit shows the subject only now.
> I think reviewers can find "interesting" patches easily if the
> dashboard shows the tags.

I just found out you could query search for messages like this:
status:open message:[Neutron]

> This is not so strong opinion because some scenario tests may have
> several services tags.

And you have a limited subject length that's already not enough (for me at least)

> 
> --
> Masayuki Igawa
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev